HONTHEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAUS von. - Bishop and canonist, better known under the pseudonym of Febronius; he is the initiator of the movement that took from him the name of Febronianism. Born at Trier on 22 Jan. 1701, died at Montquintin (Luxembourg) on 2 Sept. 1790. He studied theology and canon law at Trier, at Louvain (where his teacher was the canonist Van Espen) and at Leiden. After various offices, in 1748 he was appointed coadjutor of the archbishop and vicar general of Trier.
A professor and later pro-chancellor of the University, he devoted himself to diligent historical research: in 1750 he published the monumental Historia Trevirensis diplomatica et pragmatica, completed 7 years later by a supplement (Prodromus). Such studies prepared him for his major work, on which he labored for 20 years, published in 1763 at Frankfurt under the veil of anonymity: Iustini Febronii iurisconsulti de statu ecclesiae deque legitima potestate Romani pontificis liber singularis ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione constitutus. The purpose of the book, proclaimed in the title, is to promote the return of separated Christians to the unity of the Church, but in reality its content is anything but irenic, manifesting the intent to transform the constitution of the Church, emptying the authority of the head of the Roman pontiff. Already the preface reveals its character. It is in fact an appeal to the pope himself, and then to princes, bishops, theologians and canonists, that limits be placed on papal power in the Church, altered by the «system of ecclesiastical monarchy». To this end H. outlines in the nine long chapters of the book a veritable treatise of public ecclesiastical law, entirely in an anti-papal key. The institution of the primacy is not denied, but it is interpreted in such a way as to demonstrate that Christ would have given the primacy not to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles, and therefore to the Church. The pope, therefore, has in the Church a true authority, not a simple primacy of honor, but neither a primacy of jurisdiction (the expression is strongly combated by H.): he is the «center of the unity of the Church», observes ecclesiastical legislation («vindice of the canons») and exercises limited powers of judge and teacher of the Church. Such would be the «essential rights of the primacy» and such would have been, according to H., the constitution of the Church until the 9th century, that is to say until the false decretals of Isidore (magnus ille peccator), which would have profoundly altered its nature, giving the pope new rights, in usurpation of the rights of the bishops. Among these he places the so-called major causes (which concern the bishops), ecclesiastical laws, the supreme authority of ecumenical councils. The «stema ecclesiastico» that H. advocates should claim for the episcopate those rights, giving the Church a constitution based essentially on the bishops, sovereign in their own dioceses and in the ecumenical council. In the last chapter, H. suggests the practical means «to recover ecclesiastical liberty», trampled upon by the Holy See; one sees clearly there how his system leads naturally to the subjection of the Church to the State, because, convinced of the weakness of the bishops, he attributes to the prince, whom he exalts as «patron of the Church», the principal task of claiming the primitive ecclesiastical constitution and of fighting against the Holy See. Thus H., starting from a system of anti-papal episcopalism, «handed the Church over to the secular arm» (Pastor).
The book immediately enjoyed great success especially in the German countries (German, French, Italian, Portuguese translations were made of it), because it responded to the spirit of the time, favoring the struggle against the authority of the papacy, conducted by the great majority of Catholic sovereigns to establish the supremacy of the State over the Church (v. REGALISM; SEPARATISM); moreover it seemed to correspond to the contemporary works of political writers, who proposed to regulate and transform the constitution of civil society. Brilliant in its exposition, and rich in historical erudition, the book contains incongruities and grave errors, nor is it original, depending on the Gallicans and especially on Van Espen. Under the appearances of historical-juridical research, it reveals its character as a great anti-papal pamphlet, no different in this from other works of the anti-papal polemic of the 18th century (for example, the writings of Giannone). The work was immediately placed on the Index (1764) and had many confutations on the Catholic side; the most important was that of Fr. A. M. Zaccaria (Antifebronia, 2 vols., Pesaro 1776). St. Alphonsus de' Liguori also wrote a polemical opuscule in 1768 (Vindiciae pro suprema Romani pontificis potestate adversus I. Febronium).
H. maintained his errors in the new editions of the book that followed from 1765 to 1777; afterward he submitted to the Holy See, and even wrote (1781) a confutation of his work; however even his retractations are not fully orthodox, and his sincerity is doubted. His doctrine continued to exercise influence, also in the first half of the 19th century (in Italy his ideas are represented by Pietro Tamburini, in the work Vera idea della S. Sede). The Vatican Council, in solemnly defining the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (Denz-U, 1826-31), put an end to all these errors.